So, if not at flamethrowers, where would you draw the line, exactly? Anti-tank guns? Land mines? Weapons grade plutonium?

Few people would actually purchase anti-tank guns, landmines or plutonium even if they were legal to own, because they would be ridiculously impractical. A good example of this is the S&W Model 500, a revolver which fires .500 caliber rounds and is the most powerful production revolver in the world. When it was released there were many who argued that it ought to be outright banned because of how enormously powerful it is. (The muzzle power is almost 3 times that of the the Model 29 used by Dirty Harry.) Despite this, there has never been a Model 500 used in a crime in the US. Why? It's impractical on a number of levels, such as the prohibitive price, which is the main thing that would keep people from buying, say, anti-tank guns or plutonium. (You can't exactly hide it that well, either.)

I think that gun ownership should be legal for whatever purpose the owner wants to use it for aside from murder. Certainly there are correlations between gun ownership and murder, because murderers probably buy guns. There are correlations between violent crimes and video games as well. Cigarettes cost far less than firearms and cause quite a few deaths, and are much more indiscriminate about their victims. Alcohol and drunk driving also kill a lot of people.

Few people would actually purchase anti-tank guns, landmines or plutonium even if they were legal to own, because they would be ridiculously impractical. A good example of this is the S&W Model 500, a revolver which fires .500 caliber rounds and is the most powerful production revolver in the world. When it was released there were many who argued that it ought to be outright banned because of how enormously powerful it is. (The muzzle power is almost 3 times that of the the Model 29 used by Dirty Harry.) Despite this, there has never been a Model 500 used in a crime in the US. Why? It's impractical on a number of levels, such as the prohibitive price, which is the main thing that would keep people from buying, say, anti-tank guns or plutonium. (You can't exactly hide it that well, either.)

If it's so impractical and expensive, why would you want to sell/buy/be allowed to own it?

Few people would actually purchase anti-tank guns, landmines or plutonium even if they were legal to own, because they would be ridiculously impractical. A good example of this is the S&W Model 500, a revolver which fires .500 caliber rounds and is the most powerful production revolver in the world. When it was released there were many who argued that it ought to be outright banned because of how enormously powerful it is. (The muzzle power is almost 3 times that of the the Model 29 used by Dirty Harry.) Despite this, there has never been a Model 500 used in a crime in the US. Why? It's impractical on a number of levels, such as the prohibitive price, which is the main thing that would keep people from buying, say, anti-tank guns or plutonium. (You can't exactly hide it that well, either.)

If it's so impractical and expensive, why would you want to sell/buy/be allowed to own it?

The same reason anybody would want something impractical and expensive; to shoot elephants.

To protect against the redcoats when we come back to put down the American revolutionaries, obviously.

Okay, humourous comments aside, there's an important point to this post.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."Granting people the ability to "bear arms" (in other words, to serve as a soldier) is a relic of the days when the US could not afford to maintain a standing professional army and required people to serve as a militia. Isn't it a bit outdated? I mean, who would you be defending yourself against now?

To protect against the redcoats when we come back to put down the American revolutionaries, obviously.

Okay, humourous comments aside, there's an important point to this post.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."Granting people the ability to "bear arms" (in other words, to serve as a soldier) is a relic of the days when the US could not afford to maintain a standing professional army and required people to serve as a militia. Isn't it a bit outdated? I mean, who would you be defending yourself against now?

The level to which you say 'that is too much power' is insanely subjcetive. I could make an arguement that a .22LR is powerful enough for all civilian needs. I could also make an argument that the .30-06 rifle should be the top end. Then exchange can be argued in either direction from either point on basis of 'statistics', 'moral high-ground', 'humane treatment' and other 'issues'.

This same arguemnt could be applied to any machine. Does anybody 'need' a Corvette or a Porsche? Are they too powerful? Should we limit maximum horsepower? To what level? 50HP, 100HP, 200HP? Limit top speeds instead? Again, to what 55? 65? 105? 165?

There are a lot of 'high-powered' firearms. The really powerful ones are generally owned by wealthy individuals becuase they are extremely expensive to fire $3-$8 PER SHOT in some cases. Are these weapons a threat to society? Not really. Criminals generally want something small and cheap. The .50 caliber handguns are huge, hard to control, and expensive. A .357 magnum does, for almost all intensive purposes, the same thing, and is much easier to use/attain/feed.

US federal law prohibits the ownership of firearms, using smokeless powder, firing a bullet of a diameter greater the .51 inches without special permit. Several US states have more strict rulings because of the sudden rise in ownership of .50 BMG rifles. This is the same round as what is fired out of heavy machine guns (such as from the top of Tanks, and the wings of most US fighter planes in WWII). There are several 'slightly smaller' rounds out there that are just about as powerful (.45-70 for example) that people ignore because 'that is an old west gun'.

It boils down to people don't want to live in fear, but each person fears a different thing. Where I might fear not being able to defend myself from an attacker, another person would fear that I would be the attacker since I own a gun. The gun control types want to control people with laws. How do you control someone who wants to be a criminal and, by definition, ignores the law in the first place?

All this argument stands to do, at least here, is to enflame both sides while they all pull out their 'statistics' and 'beliefs' to attempt to sway the other side that they are supeior to the other. Enjoy.

How do you control someone who wants to be a criminal and, by definition, ignores the law in the first place?

Lets look at two countries with differing attitudes to gun ownership. The US, which people are familiar with, allow their citizens to possess firearms by granting them constitutional freedom to do so. The UK has one of the tightest attitudes towards gun control in the world.

The argument above suggests that gun control laws would be ineffective at reducing violent or gun-related crime, because the suggestion is that people who are willing to commit crimes would have no respect for gun control laws either.

So - lets look at whether this could be judged to be true, based on real-life empirical evidence.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Comparison_with_the_United_States:[In England] In 2005/06 there were 765 homicides, including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. The population of England and Wales is 53,046,000 (out of the UK total - including Scotland and Northern Ireland of 59,835,000), which translates as 1.4 homicides per 100,000 residents.By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 of population.Okay, so there's a big difference in crime statistics between the US and the UK - the UK has a far lower count of homicides per head than the US. But that doesn't necessarily mean guns are the problem. However:70% of murders in the United States involve firearmsCompared to 9.4% in the United KingdomOnly 9.4%? That's staggering. That means less than 10% of murderers in the UK are able to get their hands on firearms.So, how many homicides involving/not involving firearms does that translate to?US - 3.85 gun-related homicides per 100,000 populationUS - 1.65 non-gun-related per 100,000UK - 0.13 gun related homicides per 100,000 populationUK - 1.27 non-gun-related per 100,000

This demonstrates that in the UK (with tighter gun control legislation) there are fewer murders involving guns. This is a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but the fact that the US has 30 times the number of gun-related homicides speaks for itself. Does this support the idea that gun control laws are ineffective? No, it does not, and in fact suggests the opposite.

The idea that "if owning guns is a crime, only criminals will own guns" is itself rather short-sighted.Yes, it does mean that people that want guns will get them anyway, but the secondary implication of this is that if anyone is found in possession of a firearm, they can be immediately arrested and punished, regardless of their motives (which, since they are criminals, will surely be negative).In a country where everyone and his dog owns a gun, seperating the unsavoury types from the law abiding citizens ready to drive back the evil forces of the land grabbing, hugely fat, chiken-leg eating King Of England, is basically impossible.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Canadian_Gun_Control.htm is a very interesting read; I'm a bit too tired to post much more at the moment. It's tempting to label high levels of handgun ownership as a main culprit in gun-related violence, but then again there are nations like Switzerland which have a high level of handgun ownership yet far fewer gun crimes than the US.

The sad truth is that most people are not rational enough to handle guns in their prime, and even less so when they're aggrevated, frightened, mad or pressured in any other way. It's just so easy to use, point and click, magic wand. No need to get close and bloody.

Still, it's US law, and I'm happy as long as the constitution doesn't take any more hits(anyone seen habeas corpus recently?). It's quite funny however. In the case of movie and game violence, it's OK to disregard the constitution(free speech vs censorship), but god help you if you attack the right to wield guns!

On a personal level I'm morbidly fascinated with guns. Maybe it's a power thing.

In the town my sister lives in everyone leaves their doors unlocked and the police station closes at 11.

That can live like this because everyone there has a gun and is trained how to use them. It's one of those towns where everyone hunts and you would have to be an idiot to try to rob a house in that town. Guns are not just devices of the devil that spread death.

And that brings me to a point I want to make. People should be allowed to have guns because criminals are sure as heck not going to give up their guns. The gun is used as a deterrent by Joe Schmo to ward off crime.

You can't take everyone's guns away because a few people are irresponsible. However I think there should be classes that you are required to take if you are seeking to buy a gun. I put that in bold so you know I am not just some gun nut.

Additionally...Anyone who is acquiring guns through less-than-legal means is going to do what they are going to do regardless of any laws and people should be able to defend themselves.